Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review

被引:21
|
作者
Ritchie, Alison [1 ]
Seubert, Liza [1 ]
Clifford, Rhonda [2 ]
Perry, Danae [1 ]
Bond, Christine [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Div Pharm, Perth, WA, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Sch Allied Hlth, Perth, WA, Australia
[3] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Appl Hlth Sci, Polwarth Bldg, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
关键词
other; pharmaceutical care; RCT; systematic review; CLINICAL-PHARMACIST; BLOOD-PRESSURE; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; MEDICINES USE; OF-LIFE; INTERVENTION; MANAGEMENT; SERVICES; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/ijpp.12578
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objectives Evidence-based pharmacy practice requires a dependable evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of high-quality primary research, and tools exist to assist researchers in conducting and reporting high-quality RCTs. This review aimed to explore whether RCTs relevant to pharmacy are conducted and reported in line with Cochrane risk of bias and CONSORT standards, respectively. Methods A MEDLINE search identified potential papers. After screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, the 50 most recent papers were reviewed and assessment of bias according to Cochrane domains and compliance with CONSORT checklist items was recorded. Each domain of the Cochrane tool and CONSORT checklist item and each article were given a percentage score, reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Correlation between quality of conduct, quality of reporting, continent of origin, and journal impact factor was conducted using the R-2 statistic. The median domain score for risk of bias by paper according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool was 53.0% (IQR 38.5-68.5), while the median compliance score by paper for the CONSORT checklist was 64.0% (IQR 36.0-94.0%). key findings The median Cochrane domain and median CONSORT item completion scores, respectively, were 50.0% (IQR 33.3-66.7%) and 59.5% (IQR 52.0-70.3%). The highest risk of bias was associated with allocation concealment and blinding, and the least well-reported items were randomisation details, sequence generation and allocation concealment. A positive relationship between conduct and reporting of RCTs was found (R-2 = 0.75), while no correlation was found between quality of conduct or quality of reporting and journal impact factor, correlation coefficients (R-2 = 0.06 and R-2 = 0.05, respectively). This review identified that issues related to randomisation and blinding are often inadequately conducted or not comprehensively reported by researchers conducting pharmacy relevant RCTs, providing useful information for education and future research.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 232
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review
    Abraha, Iosief
    Montedori, Alessandro
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 : 33
  • [22] Exploring the Reporting Standards of Randomised Controlled Trials Involving Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review
    Zywicka, Ewa M.
    McNally, Eleanor
    Elliott, Lucy
    Twine, Christopher P.
    Mouton, Ronelle
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2024, 67 (01) : 155 - 164
  • [23] Correction to: The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review
    Mairead McErlean
    Jack Samways
    Peter J. Godolphin
    Yang Chen
    [J]. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 2023, 192 : 81 - 81
  • [24] The quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review
    Coleman, Claire
    Leyrat, Clemence
    Eldridge, Sandra
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [25] Quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review
    Chan, Claire L.
    Leyrat, Clemence
    Eldridge, Sandra M.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (11):
  • [26] The quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review
    Chan, Claire
    Clemence, Leyrat
    Sandra, Eldridge M.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [27] The quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review
    Claire Coleman
    Clémence Leyrat
    Sandra Eldridge
    [J]. Trials, 16
  • [28] The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials: an updated review
    Lucy Turner
    David Moher
    Larissa Shamseer
    Laura Weeks
    Jodi Peters
    Amy Plint
    Douglas G Altman
    Kenneth F Schulz
    [J]. Trials, 12 (Suppl 1)
  • [29] Bayesian statistics in the design and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials and their reporting quality: a methodological systematic review
    Jones, Benjamin G.
    Streeter, Adam J.
    Baker, Amy
    Moyeed, Rana
    Creanor, Siobhan
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [30] Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions in ASEAN Plus Six Countries: A Systematic Review
    Pratoomsoot, Chayanin
    Sruamsiri, Rosarin
    Dilokthornsakul, Piyameth
    Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (01):